- Tuesday, you assume they were raped to prove that they were raped, that's a nice piece of circular reasoning. You make a lot of noise about the women being raped before they were brought back to camp. Nothing in the verses gives any such permission. Yes, it probably did happen. However it would have been in spite of, not because of these verses. The purpose of the entire book of Dueteronomy is to end such practices.
- Show me where the Bible condones raping women on the battle field.
- Quote mining? If you are the scholar you claim to be, you should know that quoting an author's own summary of their own work does not constitute quote mining. I simply repeated the author's own conclusions. It is odd that you would quote mine your own source then ignore her conclusions. If it will make you feel better, I could copy and paste the whole article.
- Context is more than showing that a word was used in some fashion in another place. If you understood ancient society as you seem to claim you do, you would understand that the Bible's treatment of women is quite good.
- It is apparent that you reject anything you disagree with. Hmmmm, pots and kettles.
- Numerous sources? What are you smoking? You have quoted exactly one source - and even in that one, the author disagrees with you.
- The reason I would reject the Provost of Harvard saying the same things, is that what you are saying is stupid, and coming from the mouth of the Provost doesn't make it any smarter.
- Just because a word may be understood as one thing, or has been in certain instances understood that way, doesn't mean that it must be understood that way. You have given no evidence that the word is to be understood this way - just that this is what you agree with.
- So, where do I give the benifit of the doubt to? The Bible and those who approach it in a serious manner, or some annonymous 'scholar' who claims to have fancy degrees but can do no more than conatantly repeat, "THEY WERE RAPED ON THE BATTLEFIELD" as if this somehow proves something.
- As for "moving the goal posts," are you agreeing that the Bible does not approve of rape?
Mad Dawg
JoinedPosts by Mad Dawg
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Scholar, I see that you are claiming that the destruction of Jerusalem was 70 years before the return in 537. I will grant that as your first step. Can you prove, using the Bible only, that the return was 537 years before the common era? Remember use only the Bible, nothing else. Instead of claiming over and over that it does prove it, cite the verses. I really want to know. Help me out here.
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
- Don't take my word for it, YOUR source specifically states that the Bible does not promote rape in the verses you cite.
- YOUR source agrees with my viewpoint.
- Your trying to tie "anah" with rape can hardly be excused as etymology. If you trace a word in a foriegn language to its root, you don't do it in English. You compare it to other words of the same language (Yes, I understand that those words would then need to be translated back into English). Heck, if I am going to use your method, I can make any word mean anything.
- Let's face it, your entire argument hinges on accepting the minor definition of a single word. The rest is polemics, innuendo, and your own prurient imagination.
- Sources:
- http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1elma.htm
- http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02b.html This is a lengthy article about the treatment of women in the Law. Ctrl F "mourned" will take you to the relavent section.
- http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm The relavant portion is at the bottom of the page. At the top of the page it addresses another item that you have referred to.
- http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm Another author on the same site.
- http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html An article about paying off the raped girl's father
- http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/henry/H05C021.htm From Mathew Henry's commentary
- http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom04.ii.ix.i.html By John Calvin
- http://www.biblestudytools.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=de&chapter=021 By Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
- I have degrees of my own. So what? You haven't said where you are so qualified to comment on it either. Oh yeah, you took a couple of classes in history to fill some elective credits. Let me guess, you are now a Biblical scholar! I am soooo impressed. I don't care if you are the Provost of Harvard. Your rantings don't even pass the smell test.
You still haven't established that the Bible promotes rape.
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
"Legislating behaviour is no guarantee that it will be followed, but it does demonstrate the intention of the legislators.The Yerushalmi clearly was against rape of captive women by soldiers at war. In light of recent events in Bosnia, it must be appreciated how ethically and morally forward this thinking was." This is how the author understood the sources available.
The author specifically states that the author of the verses was trying to outlaw exactly what you are trying to say it promotes. Somehow you want me to believe that the Bible promotes rape because a high school history teacher discusses the entire range of the issue using Midrash, Targum, and Talmud?
Just because some people a 1000 years later disagreed with or disobeyed a passage proves nothing about the intent of the author.
Your post number 3192 (remember this?) is utterly rediculous.
"I mean if we're supposed to abide by those laws... I could kidnap a woman; have my way with her for a month then send her back home when I'm bored with her...as long as I shave her head before she leaves...
The bible is very clear on the subject."
Frankly, if the Bible were so clear on it:
- Ms. Elman wouldn't have wasted time writing about it.
- The ancient Jewish scholars wouldn't have argued over it.
- The Bible would have in fact stated it very plainly that rape was acceptable
- You wouldn't have to use a minor definition of a word (defile, force, ravish) that is the a minor definition of another word (anah) to get to the point where you can "...wonder what it is implying..." (hint: it is implying nothing).
The author that you were so proud to quote clearly states how she understands the Bible. "The Bible says that if a man desires a captive, he may take her home and she stays in his house for a month; while there she must perform certain rituals. It then states very specifically: "And after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her and she shall be your wife." It would seem from a straightforward reading of the biblical text that no intercourse is permitted until after all the rituals have been performed. Sifrei states that if he has intercourse with her before all these rituals are completed, it is a licentious act."
-
31
David Carradine commits suicide
by John Doe inhttp://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/actor-david-carradine-found-dead-bangkok-ap.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Actually, I was also quite young when Kung Fu was on, I wonder if I would appreciate it more now. I'll have to find a couple of episodes.
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
Actually, the versions I quote are hardly softened. If you were to compare the NLT to an interlinear Bible, you would find that a huge amount of liberty with the text was taken in the NLT. For instance in I Kings 18:27 the NLT has Elijah asking if Baal is “relieving himself.” There is no textual support for this deviation.
I really don’t care what version a person uses as long as they understand the nature of the version they are using. The exception to this is when people try to use something like the NLT in an effort to establish what some verse or another says or doesn't say.But then, I suppose that some people need a version written on the 6 th grade level.
Frankly, having had more time to read the article, I find that it does not support what you seem to think it does. Did you even bother to read sections 6, 7, or 8? Did you notice this statement near the end of the article, “Once converted and married she was accorded the same privileges and had the same obligations as a Jewish born wife.”? These sections correspond very closely to how I have understood the verses from Deuteronomy.
It is obvious that you cherry-picked your quotes from this article. The summary paragraph of the conclusion of the article states: “Legislating behaviour is no guarantee that it will be followed, but it does demonstrate the intention of the legislators.The Yerushalmi clearly was against rape of captive women by soldiers at war. In light of recent events in Bosnia, it must be appreciated how ethically and morally forward this thinking was.”
Not only are you dishonest about what the verses say, you are dishonest about what your own source says.
As for your education, it is obvious that you got what you paid for.
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
I don't know what pathetic rendering of the verses they, and you, are using, but here are the verses in reputable translations along with Strong's definition of the word in question. Given the number of times that your cut-and-paste uses the words "seems" and "implies" one would think that it was written by the WTS. Your paper is really stretching hard to make a point.
King James Version
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Revised Standard Version
10 "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
New International Version
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
aw-naw' Verb
Definition
- (Qal) to be occupied, be busied with
- to afflict, oppress, humble, be afflicted, be bowed down
- (Qal)
- to be put down, become low
- to be depressed, be downcast
- to be afflicted
- to stoop
- (Niphal)
- to humble oneself, bow down
- to be afflicted, be humbled
- (Piel)
- to humble, mishandle, afflict
- to humble, be humiliated
- to afflict
- to humble, weaken oneself
- (Pual)
- to be afflicted
- to be humbled
- (Hiphil) to afflict
- (Hithpael)
- to humble oneself to be afflicted
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
Tuesday, for someone who supposedly has studied anchient history, you don't know diddly about their marriage customs. They didn't "have their way with them" at all. The betrothal period that is being spoke of did not include sex. If you want to claim it did, you need to support that claim. By twist, I mean taking stripping it of all context and interpretting it to mean something that no credible scholar would understand it to mean.
If this is the drivel that you were taught, you need to ask for a refund on your history classes.
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Scholar, you are an ignorant moron. You have so far claimed that the Bible proves that Jerusalem fell 607 years before the common era. You need to PROVE from the Bible alone that Jerusalem fell 607 years before the common era and I will happily become a pioneer. I know you quit school at 16 to serve jehober, but there is a difference between saying something is so and proving it is so. All you have to do is cite the verses that state that Jerusalem fell 607 years before the common era.
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Mad Dawg
Whatever God created animals to do is irrelevant to what man is to do - even if God Himself programmed every one of them to do it. There is nothing in the Bible that shows that God is concerned with what animals do among themselves. God's concern with animals only goes so far as they affect or interact with man. But, one can't expect a person grasp this who twists verses dealing with the kind treatment of civilian survivors of a war and compensation for a rape victim into saying that God promotes rape.
It is dishonest of you to take things out of context to force them to say things they the original audience would never have thought them to mean, and then declare them irrelevant to another society. Frankly, the ideals set forth in what these verses actually mean is still held by our society today.